104132 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

establishes the blueprint for DOE’s 

energy storage roadmap (Section 5). The 

roadmap provides more tactical 

direction, informed by the mission, 

vision, and strategic approach. 

Section 3 presents an overview of the 

types of DOE activities that support 

DOE’s Energy Storage SRM. Activities 

include not only conventional research 

activities, but also those efforts that are 

foundational and crosscutting in 

support of the mission and vision of the 

SRM as well as stakeholder 

engagements. Representative activities 

are identified in the appendix. 

Section 4 describes the portfolio of 

energy storage technologies and 

highlights opportunities for future DOE 

investment based on the current 

landscape of technologies and use cases. 

Section 5 describes the path forward 

to achieve the strategic objectives and 

vision of this Energy Storage SRM. This 

section highlights DOE activities to 

facilitate technology innovation and 

deployment, to empower decisionmakers, and to strengthen collaboration 

throughout the energy storage 

ecosystem. 

Finally, Section 6 summarizes 

anticipated outcomes and next steps 

over the next decade as DOE works to 

implement this Energy Storage SRM. 

The appendices provide additional 

context for the Energy Storage SRM: 

Appendix A identifies DOE offices 

with relevant energy storage R&D 

programs. 

Appendix B provides a list of 

acronyms used in this document. 

Appendix C provides a list of key 

terms and definitions used in this 

document. 

Appendix D provides updates to the 

ESGC 2020 Roadmap action items and 

targets; it also describes major 

transitions from the ESGC 2020 

Roadmap to the current SRM. 

Appendix E identifies representative 

DOE activities contributing to DOE’s 

energy storage portfolio. 

Appendix F reviews the relevant 2015 

Grid Modernization Initiative MultiYear Program Plan (GMI MYPP) energy 

storage activities and provides updates 

on recommended tasks. Additionally, 

relevant elements of the GMI MYPP 

2020 Update are also discussed. 

Appendix G highlights relevant policy 

and regulatory drivers impacting the 

energy storage landscape. 

Appendix H highlights representative 

examples of DOE’s international energy 

storage activities and initiatives. 

Appendix I summarizes the 

recommendations from the Electricity 

Advisory Committee’s 2022 Biennial 

Energy Storage Review, which focused 

on the ESGC 2020 Roadmap. 

DOE is seeking general feedback on 

the draft Energy Storage SRM as part of 

its process to update the ESGC 2020 

Roadmap. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 4, 2024, 

by Gene Rodrigues, Assistant Secretary 

for the Office of Electricity, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

17, 2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30390 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, 

Economic, and Environmental 

Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports 

VENTURE GLOBAL CALCASIEU PASS, LLC

[DOCKET NO. 13–69–LNG, 14–88–LNG, & 15– 

25–LNG]; VENTURE GLOBAL PLAQUEMINES

LNG, LLC [DOCKET NO. 16–28–LNG]; 

COMMONWEALTH LNG, LLC [DOCKET NO. 

19–134–LNG]; PORT ARTHUR LNG PHASE II, 

LLC [DOCKET NO. 20–23–LNG]; VENTURE

GLOBAL CP2 LNG, LLC [DOCKET NO. 21–131– 

LNG]; NEW FORTRESS ENERGY LOUISIANA

FLNG LLC [DOCKET NO. 22–39–LNG]; 

MEXICO PACIFIC LIMITED LLC [DOCKET NO. 

22–167–LNG]; GULFSTREAM LNG

DEVELOPMENT, LLC [DOCKET NO. 23–34– 

LNG]; CORPUS CHRISTI LIQUEFACTION, LLC; 

CCL MIDSCALE 8–9, LLC; AND CHENIERE

MARKETING, LLC [DOCKET NO. 23–46–LNG]; 

LAKE CHARLES EXPORTS, LLC [DOCKET NO. 

23–87–LNG]; SOUTHERN LNG COMPANY, 

L.L.C. [DOCKET NO. 23–109–LNG]; 

MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC [DOCKET NO. 23–137– 

LNG]; SABINE PASS LIQUEFACTION, LLC AND

SABINE PASS LIQUEFACTION STAGE V, LLC

[DOCKET NO. 24–27–LNG]; GATO NEGRO

PERMITIUM DOS, S.A.P.I. DE C.V. [DOCKET

NO. 24–87–LNG]. 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy & 

Carbon Management, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 2024 

LNG Export Study and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy & 

Carbon Management (FECM) of the 

Department of Energy (DOE) gives 

notice of availability of a multi-volume 

study updating DOE’s understanding of 

the potential effects of U.S. liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) exports on the 

domestic economy; U.S. households and 

consumers; communities that live near 

locations where natural gas is produced 

or exported; domestic and international 

energy security, including effects on 

U.S. trading partners; and the 

environment and climate (Study or 2024 

LNG Export Study). The Study is 

composed of a summary report and four 

appendices containing three 

coordinated modeled analyses and a 

qualitative literature review. The Study 

materials are available on the DOE/ 

FECM website at https://

www.energy.gov/fecm/regulation. DOE 

intends to use the Study to inform its 

public interest review of, and ultimately 

decisions in, certain applications to 

export LNG to countries with which the 

United States does not have a free trade 

agreement (FTA) requiring national 

treatment for trade in natural gas and 

with which trade is not prohibited by 

U.S. law or policy (non-FTA 

applications), including decisions in the 

above-referenced proceedings and 

future proceedings, and for other 

purposes. DOE invites the submission of 

comments regarding the Study. DOE 

does not intend to revise the Study 

upon receipt of comments. Rather, 

comments received will inform DOE’s 

public interest determination in each of 

the above-listed non-FTA application 

proceedings and future non-FTA export 

proceedings. Comments submitted in 

compliance with the instructions in this 

Notice will be placed in the 

administrative record for all of the 

above-listed proceedings and need only 

be submitted once. 

DATES: Comments are to be filed 

pursuant to the procedures detailed in 

the Public Comment Procedures section 

no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, 

February 18, 2025. DOE will not accept 

reply comments (i.e., comments 

responding to other commenter’s 

comments). 

ADDRESSES: 

Electronic Filing of Comments Using 

Online Form (Strongly encouraged): 

https://fossil.energy.gov/app/ 

docketindex/docket/index/30. 

Postal Mail, Hand Delivery, or Private 

Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, 

etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE– 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104133 

1The authority to regulate the imports and 

exports of natural gas, including LNG, under 

section 3 of the NGA has been delegated to the 

Assistant Secretary for FECM in Redelegation Order 

No. S4–DEL–FE1–2023, issued on April 10, 2023. 

2For comparison, Henry Hub prices in 2022 and 

2023 were $6.45/MMBtu and $2.53/MMBtu, 

respectively. 

34), Office of Regulation, Analysis, and 

Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy and 

Carbon Management, Forrestal Building, 

Room 3E–056, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. 

Due to potential delays in DOE’s 

receipt and processing of mail sent 

through the U.S. Postal Service, we 

encourage respondents to submit 

comments electronically to ensure 

timely receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Beverly Howard, Docket Room Manager, 

U.S. Department of Energy (FE–34), 

Office of Regulation, Analysis, and 

Engagement, Office of Resource 

Sustainability, Office of Fossil Energy 

and Carbon Management, Forrestal 

Building, Room 3E–042, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, (202) 586–9478, FERGAS@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

DOE is responsible for authorizing 

exports of domestically produced 

natural gas, including LNG, to foreign 

countries under section 3 of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717b.1 Under 

the NGA, an application to export 

domestically produced natural gas as 

LNG to countries that have an FTA with 

the United States is deemed to be 

consistent with the public interest by 

statute and must be granted without 

modification or delay. As for an 

application to export domestically 

produced natural gas, including LNG, to 

countries that have no FTA with the 

United States, but with which trade is 

not prohibited by U.S. law or policy 

(non-FTA countries), DOE must grant 

the application, unless it finds that the 

proposed exportation will not be 

consistent with the public interest. 

Since 2012, to inform its public 

interest determination, DOE has 

commissioned multiple studies to help 

assess the various facets of the public 

interest that are affected by U.S. LNG 

exports, including how different levels 

of LNG exports could impact the U.S. 

economy, environmental and climate 

considerations, and energy security and 

international considerations. DOE’s 

most recent economic and 

environmental analyses of U.S. LNG 

exports were published in 2018 and 

2019, respectively. At that time, U.S. 

LNG exports were just getting underway 

and U.S. export capacity was 4 billion 

cubic feet per day, less than one-third of 

what it is today. Since then, both the 

world as well as the global natural gas 

sector have changed significantly. The 

purpose of the 2024 LNG Export Study 

is to provide an update to DOE’s prior 

analyses and understanding of how 

varying levels of U.S. LNG exports 

impact and inform DOE’s statutory 

public interest determination. 

2024 LNG Export Study 

The Study comprises a summary 

report and four appendices. 

First, Appendix A: Global Energy and 

Greenhouse Gas Implications of U.S. 

LNG Exports presents an analysis of the 

global market demand for U.S. LNG 

exports across a range of scenarios and 

the global emissions impacts of 

increased U.S. LNG exports through 

2050. The three defining variables in the 

scenario design are (1) global climate 

policies and policy ambition, (2) 

technology availability, and (3) U.S. 

LNG export levels. This analysis uses 

the Global Change Analysis Model 

(GCAM), which is an integrated 

multisector model of global energy, 

economy, agriculture, land use, water, 

and climate systems. DOE’s Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory 

conducted the principal modeling work 

in Appendix A. 

Second, Appendix B: Domestic 

Energy, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas 

Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports 

presents an analysis of the implications 

of the various U.S. LNG export levels on 

the U.S. economy and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. The analysis in 

Appendix B was conducted using an 

updated and adapted version of the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) and Industrial Economics’ 

Household Energy Impact Distribution 

Model. OnLocation, Inc. and Industrial 

Economics, Incorporated performed the 

principal modeling work in Appendix 

B. 

Third, Appendix C: Consequential 

Greenhouse Gas Analysis of U.S. LNG 

Exports is an analysis of global GHG 

emissions in response to increased U.S. 

LNG Exports. DOE’s National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) 

performed the principal modeling work 

in Appendix C. 

Finally, Appendix D: Addendum on 

Environmental and Community Effects 

of U.S. LNG Exports is a literature 

review of the effects of upstream, 

midstream, and downstream natural gas 

production and exports on the 

environment and on local communities. 

This appendix summarizes key findings 

from peer-reviewed scientific literature, 

as well as publications from industry 

and non-governmental organizations. 

Staff in DOE headquarters, with support 

from NETL, prepared the summary 

information in Appendix D. 

Appendices A, B, and C present 

scenarios that evaluate the impact of 

different levels of U.S. LNG exports on 

global and domestic energy systems. 

This Study does not attach probabilities 

to any of these scenarios and is not 

intended to serve as a forecast of U.S. 

LNG exports and associated impacts. 

Rather, the 2024 LNG Export Study 

explores a range of conditions that rely 

on the described assumptions. The 

primary reference for comparison in this 

Study is the level of U.S. LNG exports 

as it moves from levels associated with 

facilities that are operating or under 

construction pursuant to a final 

investment decision (FID) as of 

December 2023 (referred to as Existing/ 

FID Exports levels) to levels determined 

by the global energy model (GCAM) in 

response to policy and technology 

assumptions (referred to as Model 

Resolved levels). 

Key U.S. natural gas supply and 

economic impact findings include: 

• The price of natural gas at the 

Henry Hub in Louisiana, a main trading 

hub for natural gas in the U.S., increases 

in scenarios where the export level is 

Model Resolved (i.e., based on modeled 

global demand and unconstrained U.S. 

LNG exports) when compared with 

Existing/FID Exports. 

—Across the Defined Policies with 

reference U.S. supply assumptions, 

the 2050 Henry Hub natural gas price 

increases 31% in 2022 dollars (from 

$3.53/MMBtu to $4.62/MMBtu), as 

U.S. LNG exports increase in response 

to the modeled global demand level. 

The modeled price increase is 

equivalent to about $0.03/MMBtu for 

every billion cubic feet/day (Bcf/d) of 

increased LNG export above existing 

and FID levels.2

—This study does not include forwardlooking modeling on the impacts of 

increasing LNG exports on natural gas 

price volatility. Given the unique role 

of the U.S. as the largest global 

producer, consumer, and, more 

recently, exporter of natural gas, there 

is uncertainty in how rising export 

levels will affect the domestic market. 

While there has not been a consistent 

relationship between domestic prices 

and export levels to date, that could 

change as a larger percentage of U.S. 

natural gas is exported. Current 

authorized export levels (over 48 Bcf/ 

d) are equivalent to approximately 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

3 Due to regional differences, the per year average 

increase for natural gas plus electricity is less than 

the sum of the per year average increase for natural 

gas and electricity expenditures. 

4See Appendix B for further discussion of how 

NEMS models GDP. 

5Past DOE and NETL life cycle studies of natural 

gas, including LNG, have been attributional studies 

that estimate emissions associated with units of 

natural gas, LNG, or other fuels used to generate a 

megawatt-hour (MWh) of baseload electricity. A 

consequential LCA accounts for the direct 

emissions from production, delivery, and use of the 

U.S. exported natural gas and the indirect emissions 

from changes in market behavior, such as 

substitution of natural gas for other sources of 

energy or additional energy use. The consequential 

GHG intensity calculated in this study is therefore 

the total effect (direct and indirect market effects) 

of U.S. LNG on global GHG emissions per unit of 

U.S. LNG exported. 

6 Global services are defined as those products of 

the global economy that provide services to 

consumers, such as energy, commodities, fertilizers, 

etc. 

45% of current U.S. natural gas 

production. 

• The impacts of increasing U.S. LNG 

exports on domestic natural gas prices 

vary by region. Within the model, LNG 

export facilities are assumed to be 

centered in the Gulf Coast region. While 

gas is sourced from regions around the 

country, the Gulf Coast and Southwest 

regions experience the greatest price 

impacts from increased LNG exports in 

model projections. 

• Higher U.S. LNG export levels in 

2050 are associated with higher U.S. 

residential natural gas prices. 

—In the Defined Policies scenarios, U.S. 

residential natural gas prices are 4% 

higher in 2050 in 2022 dollars when 

the scenario assumes Model Resolved 

levels of exports compared to 

Existing/FID Exports levels. 

—When sensitivity scenarios assume 

low U.S. natural gas supply, the 

higher level of U.S. LNG exports 

under Model Resolved assumptions 

compared to Existing/FID Exports 

assumptions results in 7% higher 

residential gas prices in 2050. When 

the sensitivity scenarios assume high 

U.S. natural gas supply, the higher 

level of U.S. LNG exports results in 

3% higher prices in 2050. 

• Under the Defined Policies scenario 

with the reference U.S. supply 

assumption, the estimated annual 

energy expenditure impacts of the 

increased 2050 natural gas prices across 

all socioeconomic levels and census 

divisions are: 

—Up to a $122.54 per year average 

increase for natural gas plus 

electricity expenditures across all 

households, with average household 

expenditure impacts up to 0.50% of 

average annual income and 3.4% of 

natural gas and electricity bills,3

including: 

D Up to a $46.52 per year average 

increase for natural gas expenditures at 

natural gas households (households 

identified in the National Energy 

Modeling System, or NEMS model, as 

using natural gas for space heating), 

with an average natural gas household 

expenditure impact of up to 0.24% of 

average annual income and 6.7% of 

average natural gas bills; and 

D Up to a $118.37 per year average 

increase for electricity expenditures 

across all households, with an average 

household expenditure impact of up to 

0.5% of average annual income and 

3.5% of average electricity bills. 

—This analysis did not explore the 

impact of increased natural gas and 

electricity prices on broader consumer 

and industrial goods, which could 

have an additional impact on 

consumer expenditures. 

• NEMS includes granular detail 

about the energy system, such as prices, 

and a separate macroeconomic module 

that provides feedback on changes in 

the broader economy. One result of the 

model’s configuration is that increases 

in energy production in response to 

LNG exports generally yield increases in 

gross domestic product (GDP) in the 

modeling framework, but secondary 

effects (e.g., effects resulting from 

changes in the price of consumer goods) 

may moderate this relationship.4 As an 

example of this effect, in the Defined 

Policies scenario with reference U.S. 

supply assumptions, increasing exports 

from existing and FID levels to Model 

Resolved levels results in a 0.2% 

increase in GDP in 2050 ($80 billion, 

2022 dollars), and cumulatively from 

2020 to 2050, GDP increases $410 

billion (2022 dollars discounted at 3%). 

GDP is one of several measures of 

economic activity, and an increase in 

GDP does not necessarily correlate with 

a positive effect on broader public and 

consumer welfare. 

• Across all scenarios, modeled U.S. 

domestic natural gas supply is sufficient 

to meet modeled global demand for U.S. 

LNG while continuing to meet domestic 

demand. This result holds across 

sensitivity scenarios on U.S. oil and gas 

supply. 

Key energy security findings include: 

• The global market for LNG has been 

increasing for several years, and LNG regasification and associated import 

infrastructure is being built out globally, 

but future demand for natural gas and 

LNG is uncertain and the demand 

centers are expected to shift. 

• DOE natural gas export 

authorizations do not include 

destination restrictions beyond a 

prohibition to exporting to sanctioned 

countries. Accordingly, U.S. LNG 

generally follows global market demand. 

—During the five years before Russia’s 

invasion of Ukraine, from 2016 

through 2021, South Korea, Japan, 

and China were the top three 

importers of U.S. LNG, collectively 

importing 34% of U.S. exports, while 

Europe imported 28%. 

—From 2022 through 2023, that mix 

changed, with the share delivered to 

Europe growing to more than 63% of 

total U.S. LNG exports, while exports 

to Asia were reduced to over 24% of 

the total. 

• While Europe has been the primary 

destination for U.S. LNG from 2016 to 

present, global demand and the 

destination of U.S. LNG in the future are 

less certain. 

—European policies aim to reduce the 

use of fossil fuels, including natural 

gas. Demand for natural gas and LNG 

in Asia is expected to increase in most 

scenarios. 

—China has recently become the largest 

global importer of LNG and has 

signed several contracts with 

operating or proposed U.S. LNG 

projects. 

—China is expected to have the highest 

LNG imports of any country across all 

scenarios in 2050. 

—Countries’ decarbonization policies 

and the availability of more costcompetitive energy sources, such as 

coal and renewables, will determine 

the outlook for U.S. LNG’s role in the 

global energy market and the energy 

transition. 

Key GHG emission findings include: 

• The ultimate global GHG 

consequences of U.S. LNG exports 

depend on market effects such as 

changes in energy demand and the 

sources used to meet that demand for 

electricity and other uses of natural gas. 

A consequential lifecycle analysis 

enables an examination of how the 

availability of U.S. LNG may affect 

global energy consumption, what types 

of energy U.S. LNG would displace, and 

the resulting global greenhouse gas 

implications.5 When comparing Model 

Resolved to Existing/FID scenarios, 

increased availability of U.S. LNG from 

23.7 Bcf/d to 56.3 Bcf/d in 2050 results 

in an additional 0.08% in cumulative 

(2020–2050) global services and an 

increase of 711 million metric tons 

(MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2e) or 0.05% in cumulative global 

GHG emissions.6

• Attributional studies estimate direct 

emissions associated with use of natural 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104135 

7For the purpose of this Notice, DOE is including 

non-FTA export application proceedings that are 

currently pending, where either (i) the 

environmental review under the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) led by other 

Federal agencies is underway or complete, or (ii) 

the application involves an extra-territorial 

proceeding where the NEPA review is led by DOE. 

gas, LNG, or other fuels used to generate 

electricity. These studies do not directly 

consider market effects of the exported 

gas but are used to compare the 

potential environmental profiles of 

alternatives. Comparing Model Resolved 

to Existing/FID Exports levels in the 

Defined Policies scenario, the direct life 

cycle GHG emissions from production, 

export, and end use (assuming 100% 

combustion without carbon capture and 

storage, or CCS) of increased U.S. LNG 

exports, before accounting for market 

effects, would cumulatively (2020– 

2050) contribute 8,588 MMT CO2e 

based on an attributional life cycle GHG 

profile of 76 g CO2e/megajoule (MJ). In 

2050, direct life cycle GHG emissions 

from all U.S. LNG would be 

approximately 1,500 MMT CO2e before 

accounting for market effects. 

• The additional GHG emissions per 

unit of additional U.S. LNG exported, or 

the consequential GHG emissions 

intensity, varies by scenario as shown in 

the table below. 

CUMULATIVE (2020–2050) CONSEQUENTIAL GHG INTENSITIES OF U.S. LNG EXPORTS

Comparison of scenarios Scenario 

2050 U.S. LNG 

exports 

(Exajoule or EJ) 

[Bcf/d] a

Cumulative (2020–2050) change in . . . Cumulative 

consequential 

GHG 

emissions 

intensity 

(g CO2e/MJ) 

U.S. LNG 

exports 

(EJ) 

[% increase from 

existing/FID] 

GHG emissions 

(MMT CO2e) 

[% increase from 

existing/FID] b

Global 

services 

(%) 

Existing/FID Exports to Model 

Resolved.

Defined Policies ....................... 20.3 [56.3] 113 [50%] 711 [0.05%] 0.08 6.3 

Commitments (High CCS) ....... 11.9 [33.1] 31 [14%] 97 [0.01%] 0.02 3.1 

Commitments (Mod CCS) ........ 9.7 [26.8] 11 [5%] 67 [0.01%] 0.01 5.9 

Net Zero (High CCS) ............... 10.3 [28.5] 17 [8%] 21 [0.002%] 0.01 1.2 

Net Zero (Mod CCS) c .............. 6.2 [17.2] 0 NA NA NA 

a 2050 U.S. LNG export levels for Model Resolved scenarios. b Cumulative change in GHG emissions (2020–2050) are 1.2% higher than the GCAM results to align the upstream emission estimates with NETL estimates that 

are used to explore upstream and liquefaction facility contributions to the consequential results (see Appendix C for additional details). c Net Zero (Mod CCS) U.S. LNG export levels do not change between the Existing/FID Exports to Model Resolved scenarios resulting in no change in global emissions or services, the results are listed as ‘‘NA’’ or Not Applicable. 

• Across scenarios in which U.S. LNG 

exports are assumed to exceed modelresolved levels (up to +20 Bcf/d by 

2050, corresponding to the High Exports 

assumption for U.S. LNG exports), 

global cumulative GHG emissions 

(2020–2050) are 324 MMT CO2e to 

1,452 MMT CO2e higher than their 

counterparts with model-resolved levels 

of U.S. LNG exports. With respect to 

cumulative consequential GHG 

emissions intensity, that is equivalent to 

a range of 3.5 g CO2e/MJ to 12.6 CO2e/ 

MJ for additional U.S. LNG exports. 

• The increase in global GHG 

emissions between the Defined Policies: 

Model Resolved and Defined Policies: 

Existing/FID scenarios is estimated to 

result in a cumulative social cost of 

GHG (SC–GHG) impact of $84 billion 

using a discount rate of 2.5%, $140 

billion using a discount rate of 2.0%, 

and $250 billion using a discount rate 

of 1.5% (all in 2022$). The cumulative 

SC–GHG of the increase in global 

emissions across the study scenarios 

ranges from $3 billion to $170 billion 

(2.5%) to $13 billion to $500 billion 

(1.5%) in 2022 dollars. 

Key environmental and community 

effects findings include: 

• The production and transportation 

of natural gas in the U.S., including 

natural gas for export, has energy, labor/ 

workforce, economic, environmental, 

and social justice implications, among 

others. 

• Production and upstream impacts 

—Increased U.S. natural gas production 

increases upstream environmental 

impacts, including on water, air, and 

land. 

—Natural gas production and 

processing emits pollutants that are 

harmful to human health. 

—Researchers have found spatial and 

temporal (i.e., location and timing) 

correlations between seismic events 

and the disposal of produced water 

from oil and gas production through 

underground injection into saltwater 

disposal wells in several states 

including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, 

Colorado, Arkansas, and Ohio. 

Various means are underway to 

reduce the impact, such as recycling 

produced water, rather than disposing 

of it. 

• Community Effects 

—Natural gas production and 

processing impacts upstream, 

midstream, and downstream 

communities in harmful and 

beneficial ways. Additional research 

is needed on the impact of LNG 

exportation on local communities. In 

particular, in areas with existing 

heavy industry, the cumulative 

impact of LNG exports has yet to be 

determined. 

—From an economic perspective, 

natural gas production and the 

development of natural gas export 

infrastructure tends to increase 

employment and wages in regions and 

communities where it occurs, but 

some evidence indicates that higherwage jobs often go to people who 

either move to the area or commute, 

rather than to long-term residents. 

—Growth in oil and gas production 

brings new revenues to local 

governments, but it can also bring 

additional burdens such as increased 

emergency services and police, 

expansion of water and wastewater 

infrastructure, and potential damage 

due to increased heavy road usage. 

—Mineral rights owners receive 

royalties from oil and gas production, 

though such recipients are not always 

local residents. 

—Quality of life impacts from natural 

gas development include noise, light 

pollution, dust, increased traffic, 

crime, and social disruptions due to 

the cyclical nature of an industry 

oriented toward commodity 

production. 

The purpose of this Notice is to notify 

the public of the availability of the 2024 

LNG Export Study and to enter the 

Study into the administrative record of 

the above listed non-FTA export 

application proceedings.7 DOE invites 

comments on the Study and how it may 

inform DOE’s public interest analysis. 

DOE does not intend to revise the 2024 

Study upon receipt of comments. 

Instead, both the 2024 LNG Export 

Study, and the comments that DOE/ 

FECM receives in response to this 

Notice, will inform DOE’s determination 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
104136 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 

8Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on 

the reduction of methane emissions in the energy 

sector and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/942 

(July 15, 2024). 

9For the purposes of these requests for comment, 

communities of interest include the towns, 

counties, parishes, boroughs, and other 

municipalities or political subdivisions in or 

around the geographic area where LNG exports 

occur, particularly the Gulf Coast region. 

10Notices of application in the affected dockets 

were published in the Federal Register as follows: 

Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC, Docket Nos. 

13–69–LNG, 14–88–LNG, and 15–25–LNG 

(Consolidated), 87 FR 1131 (Jan. 10, 2022); Venture 

Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC, Docket No. 16–28– 

LNG, 87 FR 29149 (May 12, 2022); Commonwealth 

LNG, LLC, Docket No. 19–134–LNG, 84 FR 65144 

(Nov. 26, 2019); Port Arthur LNG Phase II, LLC, 

Docket No. 20–23–LNG, 85 FR 17568 (Mar. 30, 

2020); Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC, Docket No. 

21–131–LNG, 87 FR 1133 (Jan. 10, 2022); New 

Fortress Energy Louisiana FLNG LLC, Docket No. 

22–39–LNG, 87 FR 29151 (May 12, 2022); Mexico 

Pacific Limited LLC, FECM Docket No. 22–167– 

LNG, 88 FR 6716 (Feb. 1, 2023); Gulfstream LNG 

Development, LLC, Docket No. 23–34–LNG, 72 FR 

23023 (Apr. 14, 2023); Corpus Christi Liquefaction, 

LLC, CCL Midscale 8–9, LLC, Cheniere Marketing, 

LLC, Docket No. 23–46–LNG, 88 FR 29662 (May 8, 

2023); Lake Charles Exports, LLC, Docket No. 23– 

87–LNG, 88 FR 60670 (Sept. 5, 2023); Southern 

LNG Company, L.L.C., Docket No. 23–109–LNG, 88 

FR 73008 (Oct. 24, 2023); Magnolia LNG, LLC, 

Docket No. 23–137–LNG, 88 FR 88600 (Dec. 22, 

2023); Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine 

Pass Stage V Liquefaction, LLC, Docket No. 24–27– 

LNG, 89 FR 28762 (Apr. 19, 2024); Gato Negro 

Permitium Dos, S.A.P.I. de C.V., Docket No. 24–87– 

LNG, 89 FR 78294 (Sept. 25, 2024). 

of the public interest in each of the 

above listed non-FTA export application 

proceedings and future non-FTA export 

application proceedings. 

Request for Comment 

DOE welcomes comments related to 

how the Study should be applied to 

DOE’s public interest determinations 

going forward, as well as comments on 

any aspects of the analyses and findings 

in 2024 Study. 

In particular, DOE solicits comment 

on the methods and findings in 

Appendix C. Appendix C provides a 

method of estimating the emissions 

intensity and SC–GHG for individual 

U.S. LNG projects, and of estimating a 

breakeven rate, which is the percent 

change difference between an 

individual project’s emissions intensity 

and the default assumptions that would 

result in consequential GHG intensity of 

zero for the project. DOE seeks comment 

on this method of estimating projectspecific emissions intensity and the 

breakeven rate. DOE seeks comment on 

what existing or developing 

technologies would allow U.S. LNG 

developers to achieve a breakeven rate, 

and how developers have used these 

technologies to reduce emissions. 

DOE also seeks comment on whether 

and how the 2024 Export Study might 

support imposing LNG cargo or facilitylevel reporting requirements or other 

conditions related to emissions on 

authorization holders. To what extent 

do recent changes to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s GHG reporting 

rules ease the incremental burden that 

would be associated with facility-level 

or cargo-level emissions intensity 

reporting? Relatedly, could such 

reporting requirements support the 

determination of equivalence of 

methane monitoring, reporting and 

verification measures for purposes of 

European Union Regulation 2024/ 

1787? 8

Additionally, DOE seeks comment on 

whether Appendix D adequately and 

comprehensively considered the 

impacts of LNG exports on the local 

communities and regions where LNG 

exports occur (i.e., communities where 

LNG exports and LNG export-related 

activities occur).9 Among other topics 

related to Appendix D, DOE seeks 

comment on whether Appendix D 

adequately addressed: 

• The economic profiles of the region, 

or local communities within the region, 

including changes over time. 

• Employment related to LNG exports 

in the region and in the U.S. more 

generally, including employment 

opportunities for local residents and/or 

members of underserved or 

disadvantaged communities in the 

region related to LNG exports. What 

barriers, if any, exist that limit or 

prevent local residents in the region 

from taking advantage of these 

employment opportunities? What are 

some of the ways LNG companies and 

the businesses that support them have 

enabled, or could enable, local residents 

in the region to be a part of their 

workforce, either directly or indirectly? 

• The effects of LNG exports on other 

local industries in the region, including, 

but not limited to, fishing and tourism. 

• The effects of LNG exports on 

property values and/or housing costs 

and availability in the region, and on 

public finances in the region, including 

tax revenue and/or additional spending 

on public services. 

• The effects that air emissions from 

LNG exports (e.g., nitrogen dioxide, 

particulate matter, volatile organic 

compounds, and other hazardous air 

pollutants) and other aspects of LNG 

exports may have on public health in 

the region, including physical and 

mental health, and the cumulative 

effects on regional public health of LNG 

exports occurring alongside multiple 

other industrial activities, including 

refining and petrochemicals. How do 

the effects of LNG exports compare with 

effects from other industries as they 

relate to regional public health? 

• The effects of LNG exports on 

regional quality of life, including effects 

on traffic, noise levels, odors, visual 

effects, community safety, and/or 

neighborhood character. 

• Whether local community members 

in the region have opportunities to 

engage with LNG exporters or agencies 

with LNG regulatory responsibilities on 

issues of concern. 

DOE is aware of and has consulted 

with a wide body of published scientific 

literature regarding the effects of 

upstream natural gas production and 

midstream transportation of natural gas 

on local communities in Appendix D; 

however, given that LNG exports from 

the United States are a recent 

phenomenon, only a small amount of 

published scientific literature exists 

regarding the effects of LNG exports on 

local communities. Accordingly, in 

response to Appendix D, DOE seeks 

comment in particular from members of 

those communities where LNG exports 

occur. 

Public Comment Procedures 

In response to this Notice, any person 

may file comments addressing the 2024 

LNG Export Study. Comments may 

include, among other things, data, 

reports, studies, or personal testimony. 

Comments submitted in compliance 

with the procedures in this Notice will 

be placed in the administrative record 

for all of the above-referenced 

proceedings and need only be submitted 

once. 

DOE is not establishing a new 

proceeding or docket in this Notice. 

Additionally, the submission of 

comments in response to this Notice 

will not make commenters parties to 

any of the affected dockets. Persons 

with an interest in the outcome of one 

or more of the affected dockets have 

been given an opportunity to intervene 

in or protest those matters by complying 

with the procedures established in the 

notice of application issued in each 

respective docket and published in the 

Federal Register.10

Comments may be submitted using 

one of the following methods: 

(1) Submitting the comments using 

the online form at https://

fossil.energy.gov/app/docketindex/ 

docket/index/30; 

(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of 

Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement 

at the address listed in ADDRESSES

section; or 

(3) Hand delivering the filing to the 

Office of Regulation, Analysis, and 

Engagement at the address listed in 

ADDRESSES section. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Notices 104137 

For administrative efficiency, DOE/ 

FECM prefers comments to be filed 

electronically using the online form 

(method 1). All comments must include 

a reference to the ‘‘2024 LNG Export 

Study’’ in the title line. Comments must 

be limited to the issues and potential 

impacts addressed in the 2024 LNG 

Export Study. DOE will review the 

comments received on a consolidated 

basis and may disregard comments that 

are not germane. Reply comments will 

not be accepted. 

The record in the above-referenced 

proceedings will include all comments 

received in response to this Notice. 

Additionally, all comments filed in 

response to this Notice will be available 

on the following DOE/FECM website: 

https://fossil.energy.gov/app/ 

docketindex/docket/index/30. 

The 2024 LNG Export Study is 

available electronically at https://

fossil.energy.gov/app/docketindex/ 

docket/index/30 and for inspection and 

copying in the Division of Natural Gas 

Regulation docket room, Room 3E–042, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. The docket 

room is open between the hours of 8:00 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 16, 

2024, by Bradford Crabtree, Assistant 

Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy & 

Carbon Management, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

16, 2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30370 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of a modified system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Privacy 

Act of 1974 and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circulars A–108 and A–130, the 

Department of Energy (DOE or the 

Department) is publishing notice of a 

modification to an existing Privacy Act 

System of Records. DOE proposes to 

amend System of Records DOE–31 

Firearms Qualifications Records. This 

System of Records Notice (SORN) is 

being modified to align with new 

formatting requirements, published by 

OMB, and to ensure appropriate Privacy 

Act coverage of business processes and 

Privacy Act information. 

DATES: This modified SORN will 

become applicable following the end of 

the public comment period on January 

21, 2025 unless comments are received 

that result in a contrary determination. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy 

Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 

8H–085, Washington, DC 20585, by 

facsimile at (202) 586–8151, or by email 

at privacy@hq.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Rm. 8H– 

085, Washington, DC 20585, by 

facsimile at (202) 586–8151, by email at 

privacy@hq.doe.gov, or by telephone at 

(240) 686–9485. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 9, 2009, DOE published a 

Compilation of its Privacy Act Systems 

of Records, which included System of 

Records DOE–31 Firearms 

Qualifications Records. This notice 

proposes the following amendments: 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) Headquarters 

has been added as a system location. 

The following addresses have been 

removed as system locations: NNSA 

Naval Reactors Field Office in 

Schenectady, New York; NNSA Nevada 

Site Office in Las Vegas, Nevada; 

Nonproliferation and National Security 

Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Argonne National Laboratory-West in 

Idaho Falls, Idaho; Brookhaven National 

Laboratory in Upton, New York; and 

Amarillo Site Office in Amarillo, Texas. 

The following addresses have been 

updated: NNSA John A. Gordon 

Albuquerque Complex, NNSA Los 

Alamos Site Office, Office of River 

Protection, Richland Operations Office, 

and both Office of Science locations. In 

the ‘‘Routine Uses’’ section, this 

modified notice deletes a previous 

routine use concerning efforts 

responding to a suspected or confirmed 

loss of confidentiality of information as 

it appears in DOE’s compilation of its 

Privacy Act Systems of Records (January 

9, 2009) and replaces it with one to 

assist DOE with responding to a 

suspected or confirmed breach of its 

records of Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII), modeled with 

language from OMB’s Memorandum M– 

17–12, ‘‘Preparing for and Responding 

to a Breach of Personally Identifiable 

Information’’ (January 3, 2017). Further, 

this notice adds one new routine use to 

ensure that DOE may assist another 

agency or entity in responding to the 

other agency’s or entity’s confirmed or 

suspected breach of PII, as appropriate, 

as aligned with OMB’s Memorandum 

M–17–12. This notice deletes a 

duplicative routine use about sharing 

the records to a Federal, state, or local 

agency in order to obtain information 

relevant to a Departmental decision 

concerning the hiring or retention of an 

employee, the issuance of a security 

clearance, the letting of a contract, or 

the issuance of a license, grant or other 

benefit. This routine use continues to be 

recognized, singularly, as routine use 

number two. An administrative change 

required by the FOIA Improvement Act 

of 2016 extends the length of time a 

requestor is permitted to file an appeal 

under the Privacy Act from 30 to 90 

days. Both the ‘‘System Locations’’ and 

‘‘Administrative, Technical and 

Physical Safeguards’’ sections have been 

modified to reflect the Department’s 

usage of cloud-based services for 

records storage. Language throughout 

the SORN has been updated to align 

with applicable Federal privacy laws, 

policies, procedures, and best practices. 

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER: 

DOE–31 Firearms Qualification 

Records. 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: 

Unclassified. 

SYSTEM LOCATIONS: 

Systems leveraging this SORN may 

exist in multiple locations. All systems 

storing records in a cloud-based server 

are required to use governmentapproved cloud services and follow 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) security and privacy 

standards for access and data retention. 

Records maintained in a governmentapproved cloud server are accessed 

through secure data centers in the 

continental United States. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Headquarters, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1